Debate Over Labor Force Participation

Jim Tankersley of the Washington Post declares victory in our WonkFeud, noting a) that I admitted to mostly agreeing with his original point, and b) that Wall Street Journal style requires me to call him “Mr. Tankersley,” which makes our fight sound more like a Hamilton-vs-Burr duel than a Jay-Z-vs-Nas rap feud. I’ll concede the latter point, but I’d argue that as the challenger in this duel, it’s up to Mr. Tankersley to come up with a genuine point of dispute. If we actually agree, then I win by forfeit.

To review: In Monday’s Outlook column, I set out to determine how much of the historic decline in the U.S. labor force was due to short-term (“cyclical”) factors, and how much was the result of longer-term (“structural”) factors. My conclusion: It’s mostly structural. Mr. Tankersley’s retort: “You’re wrong! It’s mostly structural!” As diss tracks go, this wasn’t exactly “Ether.”

Mr. Tankersley and I agree that overall labor-force participation (the share of the population that’s working or looking for work) was bound to decline from its late-90s peak due primarily to the aging of the Baby Boom generation. That’s worrisome, because rising participation, particularly among women, was a major driver of economic growth in the second half of the 20th century. Losing that engine was bound to hurt. But Mick Jagger’s boundless energy notwithstanding, the wave of retirements was always inevitable.